Easy Way to Encourage "Tall"

[acluewithout]

I’m very suspicious of any suggestions to just make Population more valuable, eg flat yields from Pop, +% bonuses and or buffing specialists. First, because I don’t think it encourages tall (assuming that’s a thing you want). Because just making Pop valuable, will still mean you okay wide, but then try to pump up pop in each city you have (which is basically what we already have with Rationalisation Policy Card). Second, and relatedly, I think you just end up with all your cities being equally useful and having equal populations.

I’m also just not sure Tall v Wide is even a thing any more or something we should worry about. Civ already lets you build tall, and it does have its merits. It’s just that wide is better, and I’m okay with that. Although, even with wide, a few tall cities can be useful, so you sort of play both tall and wide.

I’m sure things could be better balanced here, but I also like the current yields per Pop, I like the current value of Specialists (although I wish Encampments and Harbour Specialists gave Culture and Science again), and I like how we mostly get flat yields not percentages (which makes the few percentages we can get more interesting). So, not sure what’s to do.

My big hope is we get mid or late game Governors based around Ideolgies. If we did, they might have abilities that further buff tall for a few key cities. That would be fun.

I also think limiting how many Campuses you can have empire wide - so you can’t spam campuses, and so can’t really spam cities to build campuses - would also help and be a good change.

I also think an issue is just the micro involved with wide empires. If you have 30 cities, you just have this undifferentiated ocean of cities in your Civ colours, all with their build queues, pops, tiles etc etc etc.

There is a bit of differentiation around home continent v foreign continent, cities you settled v cities you capture, and your religion v foreign religions, Governor v more Governor but those differences aren’t front and centre and don’t really change the level of micro needed for each city. I think the game would benefit a bit from having different types of city ownership - eg direct controlled v vassal (which would maybe involve less micro?).

 

[Scaramanga]

Tall is just having bigger cities than the average and wide is having more. Since bigger cities can support more districts it's like a quality over quantity thing. Ideally you'd have both.

 

[Arent11]

District adjacency bonuses increase by 5% for each pop point above 5, and 10% for each pop point above 10. So a pop 15 city generates 50% more science, culture, faith, and commerce then a pop 10 city. And a pop 10 city generates 25% more then a pop 5 city.

There!

Logic: science, commerce, and culture are higher in population density urban areas then a bunch of rural hamlets. Should be easy to mod. Any mods like that?

The game is already a mess of countless rules which could be drastically simplified to achieve the same effect.

To adress the problem mentioned here: Simply get rid of the housing & amenity mechanic. You would still need increasing amounts of food to grow, which would provide a 'soft limit' to growth.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Is there a good example that doesn't involve colonies and trade companies?

Anyway, realism doesn't always lead to good game play. One of the X's in 4X is expand. I'd like to keep that one.

Well, probably as many examples as there are of a wide spread low density area, low pop area being "better" than large developed urban areas.

People here like to say that "Large vs. Tall" started with the late stages of Civ V--I'd say it started with all of the talk of "ICS" which goes back at least to II. (Now granted pure "ICS" in its original meaning has been stamped out long ago, but it started this discussion.) Different terminology but basically the same concept. The trick is making it so you have a hard time deciding whether to spread out or develop your megacities.

 

[Smity2k1]

I like the idea of specialist yields increasing as you progress through the eras (or as each tier building is built). It would also be cool, and sort of make sense, if specialists in cities with higher populations had more benefit than specialists in cities with lower population.

 

[acluewithout]

I like the idea of specialist yields increasing as you progress through the eras (or as each tier building is built). It would also be cool, and sort of make sense, if specialists in cities with higher populations had more benefit than specialists in cities with lower population.

FXS did this sort of already in one of the last two patches, increasing Specialist yields via Tier 3 buildings. I think the changes were fine and I like where specialists are now (other than Encampment and Harbour Specialists), but I wouldn’t hate some further tweaks to buildings buffing specialists.

 

[Disgustipated]

I've proposed this a long time ago, but I feel a size 20 city should get an extra free trade route. And another free trade route at size 35 (though I rarely get up that high these days since my victories have been quick).

 

[KayAU]

I have proposed this many times before, but I suspect it is not a popular suggestion. Still, this is my preference:

• I would like some sort of soft administrative cap on number of cities, similarly to games like Stellaris and Fallen Enchantress. The cap could depend on a number of things, such as:
  • Technology and culture (for example, it makes sense that advances in communication technologies would allow you to control a wider empire)
  • Government type and policies
  • Civ/leader abilities
  • Specific wonders

Going past the administrative limit should be possible, but come at a cost, such as heightened unrest or administrative costs. There could also be ways to mitigate this, such as specific city buildings, policies, abilities, and so on.​

The reason I like this approach is that in addition to making logical sense, it introduces a good trade-off mechanism where a player could go tall, wide or somewhere in between, depending on what the situation dictates or how they prefer to build their empire. Investing in things which grows your administrative cap means not investing in other things which could enhance your existing cities. It also serves as a pacing mechanism, which means growing too quickly or conquering too much without having the technology or adminstrative ability to hold a large empire together, could get you into real trouble. Finally, while this is a little bit more far fetched, it could allow for new strategies in which you can destabilize large empires by messing with their administrative cap through espionage or diplomacy.

 

[AlannaT]

Maybe it should be possible to build duplicate districts after reaching a certain population threshold (e. g. a second campus at 16 population)?
One of the main reason you want more cities for is not just random district slots but more slots for specific districts that you have already build in your old cities.

 

[NukeAJS]

I think it's an ok idea but the numbers need to be tweaked a bit. The numbers you gave would result in most wide victories being even faster since I almost always have a handful of cities I let grow tall for production reasons.

 

[Ezerin]

I have proposed this many times before, but I suspect it is not a popular suggestion. Still, this is my preference:

• I would like some sort of soft administrative cap on number of cities, similarly to games like Stellaris and Fallen Enchantress. The cap could depend on a number of things, such as:
  • Technology and culture (for example, it makes sense that advances in communication technologies would allow you to control a wider empire)
  • Government type and policies
  • Civ/leader abilities
  • Specific wonders

Going past the administrative limit should be possible, but come at a cost, such as heightened unrest or administrative costs. There could also be ways to mitigate this, such as specific city buildings, policies, abilities, and so on.​

The reason I like this approach is that in addition to making logical sense, it introduces a good trade-off mechanism where a player could go tall, wide or somewhere in between, depending on what the situation dictates or how they prefer to build their empire. Investing in things which grows your administrative cap means not investing in other things which could enhance your existing cities. It also serves as a pacing mechanism, which means growing too quickly or conquering too much without having the technology or adminstrative ability to hold a large empire together, could get you into real trouble. Finally, while this is a little bit more far fetched, it could allow for new strategies in which you can destabilize large empires by messing with their administrative cap through espionage or diplomacy.

I don't like this kind of mechanics, they seem to be artificial, restrictive and non-adaptive for a situation. If i have many (good) lands to settle, why should i be stoped or punished by any mechanics for doing so? Such mechanics in my eyes only confirms that game fails at balancing different playstyles and tries to dictate to player certain ones.
Pretty much same thing i may say about ideas to additionaly reward certain population level, but if different cap mechanics punish certain playstyles, mechanics based on population level rewards certain playstyles. Those are two extreme ways of dictating playstyle. This is actiually reason why i hate civics that benefit 10 population. Game already has similar mechanics, they just aren't always obvious. Luxury resourses provide 1 amenity to maximum 4 cities in your empire, so any new city above first 4 will drain amenity from other cities, this is a different kind of cap mechanic. Districs slots is a reward mechanic for reaching certain population level. Adding such mechanics above existed will only ends in overcomplexity and playstyle dictation.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't like this kind of mechanics, they seem to be artificial, restrictive and non-adaptive for a situation. If i have many (good) lands to settle, why should i be stoped or be punished by any mechanics for doing so? Such mechanics in my eyes only confirms that game fails at balancing different playstyles and tries to dictate to player certain one.
Pretty much same thing i may say about ideas to additionaly reward certain population level, but if different cap mechanics punish certain playstyles, mechanics based on population level rewards certain playstyles. Those are two extreme ways of dictating playstyle. This is actiually reason why i hate civics that benefit 10 population. Game already has similar mechanics, they just aren't always obvious. Luxury resourses provide 1 amenity to maximum 4 cities in your empire, so any new city above first 4 will drain amenity from other cities, this is a different kind of cap mechanic. Districs slots is a reward mechanic for reaching certain population level. Adding such mechanics above existed will only ends in overcomplexity and playstyle dictation.

I like the one suggestion above, namely limiting the number of a specific district to the overall population in your civ. So, say you build you campus when your capitial hits pop 3: your civ then can't support a second campus until you get to pop 12 overall (or whatever the number is). Then perhaps better govs, gov plaza, etc. ease that restriction a bit.

It just makes sense that a sprawling empire of tiny hamlets shouldn't all be able to support a university center.

 

[UWHabs]

I like the one suggestion above, namely limiting the number of a specific district to the overall population in your civ. So, say you build you campus when your capitial hits pop 3: your civ then can't support a second campus until you get to pop 12 overall (or whatever the number is). Then perhaps better govs, gov plaza, etc. ease that restriction a bit.

It just makes sense that a wide empire of tiny hamlets shouldn't all be able to support a university center.

I'm not sure if a hard cap makes sense, but you could also have a soft cap by changing how districts scale in price. Right now, districts are basically 54*(10Xtech pct), scaling linearly with tech, with some discounts here or there for other things. If instead, you changed costs to be like 54*(num districts of that type in your empire + num other districts in your city), then, for example, you need to really think hard whether you want the 8th campus in your empire when building your empire's 2nd holy site would be 4X cheaper.

The other thing that I think would be nice would be making the T2 and T3 buildings from every district have a regional effect. That way, one university obviously helps you a lot to cover the nearby cities, but building another university next door doesn't really help you much. Of course, you might need to rebalance those buildings, since that would actually further encourage ICS to build a cheap city to benefit from all the nearby regional buildings. You'd probably need to change universities and the like to provide science per pop instead of a flat science bonus per city.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm not sure if a hard cap makes sense, but you could also have a soft cap by changing how districts scale in price. Right now, districts are basically 54*(10Xtech pct), scaling linearly with tech, with some discounts here or there for other things. If instead, you changed costs to be like 54*(num districts of that type in your empire + num other districts in your city), then, for example, you need to really think hard whether you want the 8th campus in your empire when building your empire's 2nd holy site would be 4X cheaper.

The other thing that I think would be nice would be making the T2 and T3 buildings from every district have a regional effect. That way, one university obviously helps you a lot to cover the nearby cities, but building another university next door doesn't really help you much. Of course, you might need to rebalance those buildings, since that would actually further encourage ICS to build a cheap city to benefit from all the nearby regional buildings. You'd probably need to change universities and the like to provide science per pop instead of a flat science bonus per city.

I guess I was thinking of it in terms of not necessarily making it more difficult to build a bunch of campuses, but that if you do want to go that way you need to invest in your cities more and grow them a bit. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the one issue that makes the "Wide V Tall" keep coming up is how all the landscapes dotted with size 3 campus cities doesn't really seem right. I see where you're going though.

 

[Scaramanga]

It just makes sense that a sprawling empire of tiny hamlets shouldn't all be able to support a university center.

I'm not sure how they can currently if the district costs scale globally and libraries and universities require gold or production to make, with maintenance costs on top of that. Just having a Campus in every city is not unrealistic to me but it might be unwise since they can't all be splendid +3 adjacency locations and they cost more if there are more of them globally.

 

[Ezerin]

I like the one suggestion above, namely limiting the number of a specific district to the overall population in your civ. So, say you build you campus when your capitial hits pop 3: your civ then can't support a second campus until you get to pop 12 overall (or whatever the number is). Then perhaps better govs, gov plaza, etc. ease that restriction a bit.

It just makes sense that a sprawling empire of tiny hamlets shouldn't all be able to support a university center.

This is another kind of cap mechanics. You just hiding new copies of specific district behind milestones, i don't see how it will force player to make interesting decisions or bring game to healthy state. It will be very frustrating because such mechanic just blocking efficient strategies, you'll build many different districts not because you want to, but because you don't have other options. And you'll think "I have reached 12 overall population in my civ, so i have to build second campus now".

The other thing that I think would be nice would be making the T2 and T3 buildings from every district have a regional effect.

At some point i thought about exacly same idea, but now i think it's still not good idea. I think it will result in one of two possible scenarious:
1) Spaming same set of districts in each city still a thing, because stacking specific GPP is pretty powerfull.
2) Instead of spam same set of districts per city, players will spam same set of districts per region. The set will be wider and include almost every district type, that will result in non-specialized empires. Players will just tend to cover each city in empire with AoE of each district type.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the one issue that makes the "Wide V Tall" keep coming up is how all the landscapes dotted with size 3 campus cities doesn't really seem right.

I don't think this is how it works right now, the most efficient strategy now is to get as many 10 populated cities placed with optimal density with 3-4 districts in each as you can and have several big powerhouse cities. And first to build district for me ussualy is one that increase trade route capacity, because trade routes are very helpfull to develop your empire and to keep up with scientific and cultural progress.

I for sure can be wrong about it, but it would be really sad if what you said has been most efficient strategy. I don't think current state of game in such catastrophic position, it is way better right now.

 

[Furycrab]

I'm not sure if a hard cap makes sense, but you could also have a soft cap by changing how districts scale in price. Right now, districts are basically 54*(10Xtech pct), scaling linearly with tech, with some discounts here or there for other things. If instead, you changed costs to be like 54*(num districts of that type in your empire + num other districts in your city), then, for example, you need to really think hard whether you want the 8th campus in your empire when building your empire's 2nd holy site would be 4X cheaper.

? Isn't there already some scaling like that. I'm pretty sure if you try building a district you've never built before in the midgame it can be almost half the cost of your next Campus or something. That effect could maybe be made a little stronger, but I feel at some point it would take away from being able to play the map and start actively discouraging you from getting extra resources.

Personally, what I perhaps hate about how it works right now is that you might be encouraged a bit too much to pack your cities, because for instance... having 3 campuses in one area is almost always better than having 2 campuses with cities that breath a little better and can grow a little taller. However it's not just that. Close-knit cities are almost infinitely easier to defend, they are easier to maintain loyalty... List sorta goes on.

I don't know how you change that without also discouraging players from just expanding when the opportunity cost is low.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I shall point out sth.

In Civ 6 , a city will not grow quicker if you have fewer other cities, nor will it grow slower if you have more other cities. That is to say, "tall" and "wide" are not contradict to each other.

 

[KayAU]

I don't like this kind of mechanics, they seem to be artificial, restrictive and non-adaptive for a situation. If i have many (good) lands to settle, why should i be stoped or punished by any mechanics for doing so? Such mechanics in my eyes only confirms that game fails at balancing different playstyles and tries to dictate to player certain ones.

Yeah, as I said, I suspect it is not a popular idea. I don't agree it is any more artificial than other concepts in the game, though, such as for example tile yields, amenity counts, research costs...these are all numbers intended to represent some concept from reality in a game with clearly defined rules. The administrative cap would represent the challenge of holding a widespread empire together dependent on a number of factors, such as how advanced your means of communication and government is, and the strength of your cultural identity. Boiling it down to numbers is artificial, but it's how things are modeled in the game.

I also don't think that this has to dictate any given playstyle, or that it is inflexible. There would be ways to focus more on expansion, or to focus more on internal development. Going over the cap in the games I mentioned is very much a possibility, so if your priority is to secure good nearby lands, there would be no reason you couldn't do that. In Fallen Enchantress, for example, I almost never say no to a good city spot, but overextending will sometimes present me with some challenges in the short term.

 

[Sostratus]

Adjacency is the only part of district system that, in my opinion, works correctly.
Adjacency incentivizes players to build districts in good locations. This is exactly what you are supposed to do!
The issue, of course, is that adjacency is a minor facet of the “problem” districts- campus, theater, arguably CH- where it’s almost irrelevant compared to the overwhelming power of the buildings. (IZ & Harbor are much more tied to adj in their overall output.)
The universal flat yield of buildings means that a scheme like the one OP lays out is irrelevant. No one builds a tundra outpost for the campus itself, they build it for the library+uni+lab.

If you do not shift the raw output of these buildings away from flat values towards something else (many have suggested the civ5 model of increasing science/culture per pop instead of flat numbers) the incentive to ICS will never go away.

Also, the fact that cards like Rationalism exist is an affront to balance because it directly exacerbates the issue. If it were up to me, those +% building yield cards would become +yield from specialists of that type. Probably +2 or +100% or something like that.